Spell Resistance and rolling a "1".


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

RainyDayNinja wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Is there another think "attack" is rolled against other than AC?

I'm honestly asking.

Yes. It's been pointed out several times already that Combat Maneuver checks are also attack rolls, and can auto-succeed/fail even though they aren't rolled against AC, because that is a property of attack rolls, not a property of AC.

Ninja'd by a RainyDayNinja! Bah!

There's your answer. Proof that the 'auto' mechanic is a property of attack rolls and not of AC.

Now on to the next bit:-

If we were to follow your logic ad absurdium (because that's where it leads), if 'SR is like AC' becomes 'since the roll against the AC mechanic has auto-fail/succeed, so must the roll against SR, then 'since the roll against the DC of a saving throw has the auto-fail/succeed mechanic, then so must the roll against any DC, because we can be certain that DC is 'like' DC!

But we know that some rolls against DC use the 'auto' mechanic (saving throws) and some don't (everything else).

Logic is like the rain; it falls on every rule alike. You cannot apply your 'logic' to some things of your choice then refuse to apply it consistantly.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:


Now this is interesting. I point out what other people have said in answer to your question, without answering the question myself, and then you say that the people whose answer I was repeating for you are dodging the question, and give me credit for answering when I actually didn't.

This would be the other main reason people don't respond very positively to you: it's quite clear that you're not reading people's posts very carefully, yet you get belligerent when you feel other people aren't reading yours.

If you chose to be more thoughtful and less assuming toward others, you might find yourself more satisfied with future discussions.

Ok, I guess then I rescind giving you credit for actually taking a position and a stance?

You have not answered the question, you are continuing to dodge it (as you accused me of doing earlier) apparently, and I am sorry I said otherwise.

Better?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
It specifically says the maneuvers are "place of a melee attack".

Did you read the rest of the paragraph in which you found that quote?

Quote:

Performing a Combat Maneuver

When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.

Note that when they want something to be considered an attack roll, they say "attack roll" several times in a row.

Liberty's Edge

And before the combat manuever argument gets rolling, let me refute it.

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

Containing Base Attack Bonus is not the same as being an attack.

Further

"When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action."

In other words, they replace an attack action, or are a separate action.

They are not an attack action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Attack rolls can be applied to things other than AC, such as CMD (via maneuvers) or other attack rolls (via Duelist Parry).
Attack bonuses (such as Base Attack Bonuses, Dex, etc...) are applied to CMD, but those aren't attack rolls.
Core Rulebook: Combat chapter: Special Attacks: Combat Maneuvers: Performing a Combat Maneuver: second paragraph wrote:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

...
Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Combat wrote:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll

FFS they are literally spelling out explicitly that this is an attack roll for you how are you not getting it.

Liberty's Edge

Roberta Yang wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It specifically says the maneuvers are "place of a melee attack".

Did you read the rest of the paragraph in which you found that quote?

Quote:

Performing a Combat Maneuver

When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.

Note that when they want something to be considered an attack roll, they say "attack roll" several times in a row.

Fair point. I'm not sure the point of the point is, since I've said several times the caster level check isn't an attack roll, but ok.

Would you argue you can have a CMB attack roll against AC, since it is an attack roll?

Silver Crusade

Quote:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

It is specifically an attack roll, even though the attack bonus is calculated differently!


ciretose wrote:
Fair point. I'm not sure the point of the point is, since I've said several times the caster level check isn't an attack roll, but ok.

If it isn't an attack roll (and it isn't a saving throw), then it doesn't fail on a 1 or pass on a 20.

Liberty's Edge

I am honestly confused as to what this "proves"

Are there any rolls against Armor Class (or in my argument things like armor class) that don't autofail or Autosucceed?

That would prove a great deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, a lot of rolls against CMD (which is like AC) don't autofail or autosucceed. For example, an Acrobatics check to move without provoking.

Are there any caster level checks that do autofail or autosucceed?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to flag individual posts, so consider this a flagging of this entire thread for locking and perhaps printing it out and burning as well.

To the mods who may end up removing this post, where would be a good place to petition the staff to remove the option for "No response required"? In numerous threads, it has just led to further arguments about what the lack of response response even means. These threads are poison to Pathfinder newcomers who might actually be confused about the topic mentioned. The answers might seem obvious to the staff, but if they are so obvious, it would take maybe a minute to point out the correct interpretation. It would take even less time to simply lock a thread that requires no response.


Not to get cheeky because it's me and that is basically impossible lol veiled double negative but a good example of this is probably the getting tied-up portion of the grapple rules that comes after getting pinned where you can roll all the 20's you want but

If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:
I'm not sure the point of the point is

Let me help you.

You said that an attack roll is only made against AC.

This has been shown to be b!%%%&+s, as attack rolls are made against other targets.

So your 'logic' that 'SR is like DC' means 'since the roll against the AC mechanic has auto-fail/succeed, so must the roll against SR' because 'the thing which distinguishes AC is that AC is the only target for attack rolls' is provably untrue.

Liberty's Edge

Roberta Yang wrote:

Yes, a lot of rolls against CMD (which is like AC) don't autofail or autosucceed. For example, an Acrobatics check to move without provoking.

Are there any caster level checks that do autofail or autosucceed?

CMD isn't AC.

I'm not trying to devolve this, as we are all being civil at this point, but it isn't "like CMD" it's like "Armor Class"

Liberty's Edge

drumlord wrote:

I don't want to flag individual posts, so consider this a flagging of this entire thread for locking and perhaps printing it out and burning as well.

To the mods who may end up removing this post, where would be a good place to petition the staff to remove the option for "No response required"? In numerous threads, it has just led to further arguments about what the lack of response response even means. These threads are poison to Pathfinder newcomers who might actually be confused about the topic mentioned. The answers might seem obvious to the staff, but if they are so obvious, it would take maybe a minute to point out the correct interpretation. It would take even less time to simply lock a thread that requires no response.

Agreed. I may very well be wrong on this, and that could easily be resolved by a very short answer.

I don't think I am, which could also be resolved with a very short answer :)

If you want the thread to go away, lock it and say "submitted for review" or something.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:

Yes, a lot of rolls against CMD (which is like AC) don't autofail or autosucceed. For example, an Acrobatics check to move without provoking.

Are there any caster level checks that do autofail or autosucceed?

CMD isn't AC.

I'm not trying to devolve this, as we are all being civil at this point, but it isn't "like CMD" it's like "Armor Class"

But CMD is 'like' AC!

In fact, CMD is much more 'like' AC than SR is 'like' AC!

How can you deny Roberta's logic while still advancing your own?

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
drumlord wrote:

I don't want to flag individual posts, so consider this a flagging of this entire thread for locking and perhaps printing it out and burning as well.

To the mods who may end up removing this post, where would be a good place to petition the staff to remove the option for "No response required"? In numerous threads, it has just led to further arguments about what the lack of response response even means. These threads are poison to Pathfinder newcomers who might actually be confused about the topic mentioned. The answers might seem obvious to the staff, but if they are so obvious, it would take maybe a minute to point out the correct interpretation. It would take even less time to simply lock a thread that requires no response.

To make it even easier on the devs, how about a way to flag a post in the thread with something that says "This guy has the right answer"?

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I'm not sure the point of the point is

Let me help you.

You said that an attack roll is only made against AC.

This has been shown to be b!!+~!%s, as attack rolls are made against other targets.

So your 'logic' that 'SR is like DC' means 'since the roll against the AC mechanic has auto-fail/succeed, so must the roll against SR' because 'the thing which distinguishes AC is that AC is the only target for attack rolls' is provably untrue.

Actually I said I thought it was (I even emphaisised I wasn't sure).

I was shown otherwise, and so on that part I was incorrect. The argument didn't rest on that part, and in fact that is the kind of thing I was alluding to earlier in the thread about people trying to create side arguments that are beside the point.

The argument to me is pretty simple.

If SR is "like Armor Class", as far as I can tell the only difference between checks against "Armor Class" and other checks is the autofail.

So there is no reason to add "like armor checks" if it isn't actually like armor checks.

If there are checks against Armor Class that don't autofail, my argument falls apart and I'm wrong. Won't be the first, won't be the last, I don't generally wade into topics that I feel are clear cut one way or the other.

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


But CMD is 'like' AC!

In fact, CMD is much more 'like' AC than SR is 'like' AC!

How can you deny Roberta's logic while still advancing your own?

Is there a line where CMD is described as "like armor class?"

I ran a search and didn't see it.


ciretose wrote:

Are there any rolls against Armor Class (or in my argument things like armor class) that don't autofail or Autosucceed?

That would prove a great deal.

Fast-Play Ship Combat Attacks: "A ship can also attempt to ram a target if it has its minimum crew. To ram a target, the ship must move at least 30 feet and end with its bow in a square adjacent to the target. The ship's captain then makes a Profession (sailor) check—if this check equals or exceeds the target's AC, the ship hits its target, inflicting damage as indicated on the ship statistics table to the target, as well as minimum damage to the ramming ship."


Grick wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Are there any rolls against Armor Class (or in my argument things like armor class) that don't autofail or Autosucceed?

That would prove a great deal.

Fast-Play Ship Combat Attacks: "A ship can also attempt to ram a target if it has its minimum crew. To ram a target, the ship must move at least 30 feet and end with its bow in a square adjacent to the target. The ship's captain then makes a Profession (sailor) check—if this check equals or exceeds the target's AC, the ship hits its target, inflicting damage as indicated on the ship statistics table to the target, as well as minimum damage to the ramming ship."

Brilliant find! /thread now? Pretty please?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
as far as I can tell the only difference between checks against "Armor Class" and other checks is the autofail.

Many people, many times, have contested this specific claim. Although I may have missed it, I don't think you've replied to those contestations. It would help the discussion if you did defend the quoted line (or linked back to where you already did, if I missed it).

Liberty's Edge

Grick wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Are there any rolls against Armor Class (or in my argument things like armor class) that don't autofail or Autosucceed?

That would prove a great deal.

Fast-Play Ship Combat Attacks: "A ship can also attempt to ram a target if it has its minimum crew. To ram a target, the ship must move at least 30 feet and end with its bow in a square adjacent to the target. The ship's captain then makes a Profession (sailor) check—if this check equals or exceeds the target's AC, the ship hits its target, inflicting damage as indicated on the ship statistics table to the target, as well as minimum damage to the ramming ship."

Interesting.

Before I weigh in, how would each of you rule this if a 1 that would have succeeded or a 20 that would have failed was rolled?


ciretose wrote:

If it said "like armor" I would agree it was for flavor and descriptive purposes.

It doesn't. It says "Armor Class" which is a mechanic, not a visualization.

I disagree. Quite a few people use AC descriptively. I've explained quite a few game mechanics to be like AC in the past when I was explaining it was a defensive number the attack rolls against (as opposed to "like a save" which is something the defender rolls.

ciretose wrote:
For all the claims of me not answering questions, to this point no one has answered what the point of the sentence "The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks." would be if it is not intended to be read as Spell Resistance is mechanically like armor class against magical attacks.

Honestly and seriously, I believe it was just a stylistic choice on their part and that it conveys no hidden rules meaning. It is like AC because the attack rolls against it, as opposed to the normal magical mechanic in which the defender rolls to save.

ciretose wrote:
So does anyone have an answer other than "poor writing" or it the argument of the other side just that it's a typo?

I don't think it's a typo, and I don't think it's poor writing, but I know that you think it is poor writing.

ciretose wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only way Armor Class is different from another check is the auto-fail/auto-succeed rules.

But see, that's not a function of Armor Class. It has nothing to do with Armor Class. That is a function of attack rolls. Attack rolls automatically succeed on a 20 and fail on a 1. AC is irrelevant to the 1/20 rule except in that you typically make attack rolls against it.

ciretose wrote:
If it is treated like any other check, the sentance isn't needed.

I could go through the book and find hundreds of sentences that are not needed--that does not mean they add rules. Pathfinder is not a technical manual--they added lines they thought would help explain things. It has apparently confused you, which is unfortunate. However, the line is not inherently confusing because you are the only person that is honestly confused by it. I'm not saying your confusion is less valid or anything--just that the majority do not find the line problematic.

ciretose wrote:
If it were a simile for flavor comparison to armor, it would say Armor, not armor class.

And not everyone agrees with your style choices, sorry.

ciretose wrote:
So in what way is Armor Class different so that saying Spell Resistance similar to Armor Class against magical attack means anything? The only difference I can see is that rolls against armor class are subject to autofail and autosucceed.

This is not true--attack rolls autofail/succeed. AC is irrelevant to autofail/success.


ciretose wrote:
how would each of you rule this if a 1 that would have succeeded or a 20 that would have failed was rolled?

Are you asking if a natural 20 on the Profession (sailor) check is an automatic hit regardless of the target ship's AC?

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:
So there is no reason to add "like armor checks" if it isn't actually like armor checks.

The reason is to show to people learning the game system that SR is a static target number, just like AC is a static target number; and we're confident that you learned about how AC works as a game mechanic before you came to the SR part of the rules, so if we say 'SR is like AC' then you know how SR works.

As a reminder, AC does not use the 'auto' mechanic. Attack rolls use that mechanic.

It doesn't say 'CL checks are like attack rolls'!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
Before I weigh in, how would each of you rule this if a 1 that would have succeeded or a 20 that would have failed was rolled?

Wait, so a minute ago you were saying that an example of X "would prove a great deal", but when someone does find X, you won't tell us what "great deal" it proves until we give you some other commentary to work from?

Liberty's Edge

Grick wrote:
ciretose wrote:
how would each of you rule this if a 1 that would have succeeded or a 20 that would have failed was rolled?

Are you asking if a natural 20 on the Profession (sailor) check is an automatic hit regardless of the target ship's AC?

I'm asking how you would rule either a 1 or a 20 being rolled, yes.

Look, at the end of the day we all run our own games and so we have an opportunity here to look at a rule I think most of us have never seen before and see how different people would interpret it.

Seems like an interesting thought experiment to me that is very much in line with the thread.


ciretose wrote:

Interesting.

Before I weigh in, how would each of you rule this if a 1 that would have succeeded or a 20 that would have failed was rolled?

It's a skill check not an attack roll, so there's no autofail or success.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Before I weigh in, how would each of you rule this if a 1 that would have succeeded or a 20 that would have failed was rolled?

Wait, so a minute ago you were saying that an example of X "would prove a great deal", but when someone does find X, you won't tell us what "great deal" it proves until we give you some other commentary to work from?

Let me do something you seem unwilling to do. I'll take a stand.

If you like, I will e-mail you my answer before you respond.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:
Grick wrote:
ciretose wrote:
how would each of you rule this if a 1 that would have succeeded or a 20 that would have failed was rolled?

Are you asking if a natural 20 on the Profession (sailor) check is an automatic hit regardless of the target ship's AC?

I'm asking how you would rule either a 1 or a 20 being rolled, yes.

Look, at the end of the day we all run our own games and so we have an opportunity here to look at a rule I think most of us have never seen before and see how different people would interpret it.

Seems like an interesting thought experiment to me that is very much in line with the thread.

A 1 or a 20 have no special 'auto' mechanic when the roll is a Profession(sailor) check.

When adjudicating skill checks we use the rules for skill checks (no 'auto' mechanic) unless specifically directed otherwise.

So, in this example of ship combat, rolling a 20 on the Profession(sailor) check would not be an auto success, despite the fact that the target number was an AC instead of a DC.

Liberty's Edge

Not that it changes much, but I wanted to post the full attack section as it may or may not effect the reading.

"Attacks: Crewmembers in excess of the ship's minimum crew requirement can be allocated to man siege engines. Siege engines attack on the captain's initiative count.

A ship can also attempt to ram a target if it has its minimum crew. To ram a target, the ship must move at least 30 feet and end with its bow in a square adjacent to the target. The ship's captain then makes a Profession (sailor) check—if this check equals or exceeds the target's AC, the ship hits its target, inflicting damage as indicated on the ship statistics table to the target, as well as minimum damage to the ramming ship. A ship outfitted with an actual ram siege engine inflicts an additional 3d6 points of damage to the target (the ramming vessel suffers no additional damage)."

I e-mailed Jiggy my answer, so I'm locked in and can't change my answer.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Attack Roll wrote:
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit.

So the 'auto' mechanic is a function of attack rolls.

Can you quote any part of RAW that ties the 'auto' mechanic to AC?

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Attack Roll wrote:
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit.

So the 'auto' mechanic is a function of attack rolls.

Can you quote any part of RAW that ties the 'auto' mechanic to AC?

I can send you what I sent Jiggy. I want to see how people weigh in on this without muddying the waters. This part is very, very interesting to me.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

@ Ciretose:

So 'SR is like AC'?

But AC does not have an auto-fail/succeed mechanic; it is not rolled. So you cannot, by 'understanding' SR as like AC (which is a static number), conclude that therefore CL is like an attack roll for one specific mechanic that you pulled out of your arse!

So, what is the offending sentence there for?

The CRB is not only a reference document for the rules, like a good DM's screen should be; the CRB also is read by people learning the game!

So, instead of starting a 'd20 mechanic vs DC' explanation from scratch, it refers to the best known, most easily understood and most common use of the d20 mechanic as a short way of saying 'roll 1d20, add CL+mods vs SR', to re-inforce that mechanic which had just been explained.

When us experienced players look at that section of the CRB now, the 'is like AC' part is superfluous; but it's not there for us, it's there for people new to the concept so that they can get their heads round it more easily.

You've been accused of being a 'troll' before, and I can see why, but I don't think you are. I just think your mind works in a very different way from the rest of us. It's not just this thread, it's many, many threads where you have demonstrated this tendancy.

This doesn't make you a bad person, but it obviously impairs your ability to empathise with the rest of us. This is why you get the response you do.

It would benefit you to come to terms with this, so that you can understand that the rest of us don't experience logic in the way you so often demonstrate.

I wish you the best of luck in meeting this challenge.

If I am agreeing with Malachi I think that should auto-end the thread. :)

Just joking Malachi well sorta. ;)

How have you been?


Since ciretose clearly isn't interested in any evidence found in the rules, let's try a new approach:

The purpose of the autopass on a 20 / autofail on a 1 rule is to make it sure that characters cannot be completely invulnerable. If a 20 did not autopass an attack roll, a character with sufficiently high AC (which is possible if you focus on it) could never be hit. If a 1 did not autofail a save, a character with sufficiently high saves (also possible, though far more difficult) could never fail a saving throw. The autopass/autofail rule makes sure that no one is untouchable - defense can only go so high.

But that's not a necessary restriction for spell resistance because there's no way to pump spell resistance.

Liberty's Edge

@Roberta Yang - I don't know that I agree with you on the purpose of the autofail and auto succeed, but there are ways to "pump" spell resistance.

I think the purpose of the 1/20 is so that rolls which are used to attack things like armor class always have the potential to succeed or fail.

David rolled a 20 vs Goliath, for example. Or the BBEG rolled a 1 and missed.

Liberty's Edge

Also, are you going to weigh in on the ship question?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Show me how you can pump spell resistance so that an equal-level caster can't succeed even on a 20.

And no, your answer to the ship being presented is a disgrace and I refuse to dignify it with a response.

Silver Crusade

Wraithstrike wrote:

If I am agreeing with Malachi I think that should auto-end the thread. :)

Just joking Malachi well sorta. ;)

How have you been?

It's good to hear from you. : )

Although we've been on the opposite sides of our fair share of debates in the past, it has always been about each case, never about personalities.

Some people talk rubbish. Some, like you, construct well-reasoned arguments, even on the occasions where we disagree!

If ciretose were to post a sensible opinion I'd be happy to agree with it, and any past disagreement would not be a factor in a new, separate debate.

Anyway, why's it been so long since you posted?


PRD wrote:

Spell Resistance

Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level)

PRD wrote:


Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws.

As we can see, attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws are checks. CL rolls also count by the above definition.

PRD-combat chapter wrote:


Attack Roll

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).

PRD-combat chapter wrote:


Automatic Failures and Successes: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.

As we see the auto fail and success rules apply to rolls. There is not thing that ties them to a defense. As I said in my other post. A good example of this is combat maneuvers which do not target AC, but the nat 20/nat 1 rule is in play because the rules say how it affects the "attack roll"

prd wrote:

Caster Level (CL): Caster level represents a creature's power and ability when casting spells. When a creature casts a spell, it often contains a number of variables, such as range or damage, that are based on the caster's level.

Nothing about caster level checks, which is what is used against SR, mentions the nat 20 or nat 1 rule. Therefore it does not apply. In other words the rule applies to certain "rolls" not static defenses.

edited twice

Liberty's Edge

@Wraithstrike - Come on, man...don't cut off the reference right before the relevent sentance. I've debated you before, you are so much better than that.

"Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature. The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. Include any adjustments to your caster level to this caster level check."

Have you gone back to the first page to read the argument, I don't want to repost the whole thing again.

At this point I almost wish the Devs would just say I'm wrong and remove the line in the next printing (almost...)

Also, like Mal said, good to see you.

Sovereign Court

"SR is like armor class against magical attacks." That is a simile, meant to put the reader in the frame of mind so as to reference Spell Resistance as a defensive quality of the target.

It did not say "SR is like armor" because SR is not something available through mundane items with encumbrance penalties, training requirements, and so on.

Deeper or more detailed relationships are inferred and not recommended.

This is my first and final post for this thread.

Silver Crusade

(ciretose PMed me, and I'll post my reply here as well, as it's relevant to the group debate)

Who thinks '...if the boat is attacking Armor Class, in my opinion the 1/20 rule comes into play regardless of what it is attacking with...'?

The boat isn't attacking anything. Weapons don't attack, neither do boats.

In this case, the sailor isn't attacking the other boat in the sense of making an attack roll using a non-standard calculation of the attack bonus based on what the skill check bonus would be, the sailor is making a skill check who's DC happens to be the boat's AC!


ciretose wrote:
Grick wrote:
ciretose wrote:
how would each of you rule this if a 1 that would have succeeded or a 20 that would have failed was rolled?
Are you asking if a natural 20 on the Profession (sailor) check is an automatic hit regardless of the target ship's AC?
I'm asking how you would rule either a 1 or a 20 being rolled, yes.

You would add 1 or 20 to the Profession (sailor) skill bonus and compare it to the target's AC.

I would not, without some rule stating otherwise, rule that it is an automatic success or failure.

You'll note that ramming with a ship does not require an actual ram siege engine, and adding one only increases the damage, rather than causing the ship to use the normal ram siege engine rules (full-round action, attack roll, non-proficiency).


Yeah, the key is that attack rolls trigger the 1/20 rule, not the defense the attacks are rolling against. Only attack rolls and saves carry the 1/20 rule--no other kind of roll does. A Skill check against AC does not auto-fail/succeed any more or less than a skill check against any other DC.

Liberty's Edge

mplindustries wrote:
Yeah, the key is that attack rolls trigger the 1/20 rule, not the defense the attacks are rolling against. Only attack rolls and saves carry the 1/20 rule--no other kind of roll does. A Skill check against AC does not auto-fail/succeed any more or less than a skill check against any other DC.

And this is the first (and as far as I know only) "skill" check against AC. And in this case, it is still an "attack" against AC, using a boat.

Which is why I thought this example is so interesting. It is a skill check, while at the same time it is also an attack.

151 to 200 of 216 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spell Resistance and rolling a "1". All Messageboards